The
study by the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice
examined geographic variations in the drugs elderly Medicare patients received
in 2010. Researchers mapped where patients got medications they clearly needed
and where they got drugs deemed risky for the elderly. They also looked at differences
in the use of so-called discretionary drugs, which they say are widely
prescribed but of uncertain benefits.

The report’s findings underscore
those of a ProPublica
investigation in May, which found that some doctors who treat Medicare
patients often prescribe drugs that are dangerous or inappropriate for certain
patients. ProPublica also found that the federal officials who run Medicare
have done little to scrutinize prescribing patterns in their drug program,
known as Part D, or question doctors whose practices differ from their peers.

Officials from the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services could not be reached to answer questions about
the study. They have previously said that the primary responsibility for
overseeing prescribing belongs to private insurers that administer the program.
Still, they have acknowledged that Medicare should and will do more to track
prescribing in Part D and follow up on unusual patterns.

The Dartmouth researchers did
not look at the habits of individual doctors, as ProPublica did, but instead
looked at the percent of patients in each region who received certain types of
medications. Regionals boundaries were based on where patients would be
referred for hospital care.

For example, 17 percent of
elderly patients in Miami received a prescription for a dementia drug in 2010,
while less than 4 percent of patients in Rochester, Minn., and Grand Junction,
Colo., got one. Nationally, the average was 7 percent, according to the report,
titled the Dartmouth Atlas of Medicare Prescription Drug Use.

There were similar differences by
location for antidepressants. In Miami, almost one-third of elderly Medicare
enrollees received at least one prescription for such drugs and about one-quarter
of those in a swath of Louisiana did. In Honolulu, just 7 percent got one.

The report does not address
whether the patients had diagnoses that would warrant the use of these
medications. It also does not include disabled patients under 65 who are also
covered by Part D.

“We see that some clinicians are
not achieving a level of effective medication use” compared to their peers, said
Dr. Nancy Morden, a lead author of the report.
“Conversely, some clinicians are putting their patients at much higher risk by
using hazardous medications at a much higher rate than their peers.”

The report does not tackle two
of the most fraught issues in prescribing today: the use of narcotic
painkillers and anti-psychotics, especially to treat dementia in the elderly.

Morden
said she was surprised to find that, in some regions, large percentages of
patients were getting discretionary drugs that were moderately beneficial, like
those for acid reflux -- and not getting the ones that could save their lives,
like the beta blockers or cholesterol-lowering drugs.

“What are we doing?” she said. “It’s surprising
to me that we can use so much of our energy to pursue medications that give us
far less in terms of health. I worry that it’s coming at the cost of getting
the effective medications.”

People in some regions of the
country are healthier than in others. But Morden said
that does not explain the wide variations her group found in so many different categories
of drugs. That may be a signal that patients are not
being adequately informed about the risks, benefits and costs of the drugs, she
said. Doctors also may be unaware of how different their practices are from the
peers in other parts of the country.

In the report, Morden and her co-authors encourage policymakers to seek
ways of reducing geographic variation in the way medications are prescribed.
They also urge patients to ask their doctors about whether a drug is truly
needed for them.

The Dartmouth group has
previously examined how costs and use of services in the Medicare program
differ markedly across the country. They note that some of the highest-spending
regions in terms of drug costs were also among the highest users of other types
of medical services.

3 comments

Were nursing home residents included in this study. There is a long history of over prescribing antipsychotic drugs to these residents. CMS has data on this which must be analyzed with caution as the way they count antipsychotic drug users has changed, giving us a lower accounting of how many residents were given these drugs prior to 2011. While there is an ‘effort’ now to reduce the use of these drugs, the numbers remain staggering. CMS proposed using only Independent pharmacists in nursing homes but once again acquiesced to industry’s lame excuses to continue using big pharma’s pharmacists to review resident charts and make drug recommendations to docs who typically prescribe as the pharmacist recommends. These pharmacist oftentimes make recommendations based on the list of medications to push by their employers. It’s all about profits and it is killing our institutionalized elderly.

This may be a trivial question, and I don’t want to discount what I’m 99% sure is fact (that some doctors are very liberal with the prescription pad for various reasons), but how do these numbers correlate with diagnoses?

For an area like Miami, for example, you have a fair number of immigrants who have undergone significant stress in their lives, a strong recreational drug culture, the likelihood among the elderly of losing snowbird friends for half the year, and so forth. Is it so far-fetched that they’d have a disproportionate number of people who need the drugs?

Again, I’m not disputing it, just making sure it’s confirmed correctly. If you said that asthma medications were disproportionately prescribed in the cities and insulin in areas where the predominant minority is African-American via the West Indies, it probably wouldn’t be particularly suspicious.

Safeguard the public interest

Republish This Story for Free

Thank you for your interest in republishing the story. You are are free republish it so long as you do the following:

You can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. (For example, "yesterday" can be changed to "last week," and "Portland, Ore." to "Portland" or "here.")

If you’re republishing online, you have link to us and to include all of the links from our story, as well as our PixelPing tag.

You can’t sell our material separately.

It’s okay to put our stories on pages with ads, but not ads specifically sold against our stories.

You can’t republish our material wholesale, or automatically; you need to select stories to be republished individually.